Miller v. County of Erie et al
Filing
67
DECISION AND ORDER denying 52 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff is directed to appear for IME by Dr. Leitch by March 27, 2019. PLAINTIFF IS ADVISED HIS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN SANCTIONS INCLUDING THE HARSH SANCTION OF DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT. Signed by Hon. Leslie G. Foschio on 1/29/2020. (SDW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________________________
CARL M. MILLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF ERIE, DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFF
OF ERIE COUNTY, TIMOTHY B. HOWARD, Erie
County Sheriff, THOMAS DIINA, Superintendent,
LIEUTENANT KRZYSZTOF KANIA, SARGENT
CHRISTIAN J. SUNDBERG, OFFICER DEANNA J.
LATES, LIEUTENANT KAREN A. YETZER,
OFFICER KEITH L. ROBERTS, SARGENT
RICHARD J. ZOZACZKA, OFFICER D. PAUL
ROBINSON, OFFICER TIMOTHY M. WANAT,
DAVIS JULIAN, P.A., JAMES THOMAS, JOSEPH
DAMICO, ARIEL SIMMS, ROBERT GIBBENS, R.N.,
MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., and
JOHN DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
_________________________________________
COUNTY OF ERIE, DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFF
OF ERIE COUNTY, TIMOTHY B. HOWARD, Erie
County Sheriff, THOMAS DIINA, Superintendent,
LIEUTENANT KRZYSZTOF KANIA, SERGAENT
CHRISTIAN J. SUNDBERG, OFFICER DEANNA J.
LATES, LIEUTENANT KAREN A. YETZER,
OFFICER KEITH L. ROBERTS, SARGENT
RICHARD J. ZOZACZKA, OFFICER D. PAUL
ROBINSON, OFFICER TIMOTHY M. WANAT,
DAVIS JULIAN, P.A., and ROBERT GIBBENS, R.N.,
Cross Claimants,
v.
JOSEPH DAMICO, JAMES THOMAS,
and ARIEL SIMMS,
Cross Defendants.
_________________________________________
DECISION
and
ORDER
17-CV-00928W(F)
_________________________________________
COUNTY OF ERIE, DEPARTMENT OF SHERIFF
OF ERIE COUNTY, TIMOTHY B. HOWARD, Erie
County Sheriff, THOMAS DIINA, Superintendent,
LIEUTENANT KRZYSZTOF KANIA, SARGEANT
CHRISTIAN J. SUNDBERG, OFFICER DEANNA J.
LATES, LIEUTENANT KAREN A. YETZER,
OFFICER KEITH L. ROBERTS, SERGEANT
RICHARD J. ZOZACZKA, OFFICER D. PAUL
ROBINSON, OFFICER TIMOTHY M. WANAT,
DAVIS JULIAN, P.A., and ROBERT GIBBENS, R.N.,
Counter Claimants,
v.
CARL M. MILLER,
Counter Defendant.
_________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
SHAW & SHAW, P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter Defendant
LEONARD D. ZACCAGNINO
4819 South Park Avenue
PO Box 846
Hamburg, New York 14075
MICHAEL A. SIRAGUSA
ERIE COUNTY ATTORNEY
Attorney for Defendants, Cross Claimants, and
Counter Claimants County of Erie, Erie County Sheriff,
Howard, Diina, Kania, Sundberg, Lates, Yetzer,
Roberts, Zozaczka, Wanat, Julian, and Gibbens
ANTHONY B. TARGIA, and
ERIN ELIZABETH MOLISANI
Assistant Erie County Attorneys, of Counsel
95 Franklin Street
16th Floor
Buffalo, New York 14202
KEYHANI LLC
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross Defendant Damico
DARIUSH KEYHANI, of Counsel
1050 30th Street, NW
Washington, District of Columbia 20007
and
2
MEREDITH & KEYHANI PLLC
FRANCES H. STEPHENSON, of Counsel
205 Main Street
East Aurora, New York 14052
COLUCCI & GALLAGHER, P.C.
Attorneys for Defendant Maxim Healthcare Svcs., Inc.
PAUL G. JOYCE, of Counsel
2000 Liberty Building
424 Main Street
Buffalo, New York 14202-3695
JURISDICTION
This case was referred to the undersigned by Honorable Lawrence J. Vilardo on
March 19, 2018, for all pretrial matters including preparation of a report and
recommendation on dispositive motions. The matter is presently before the court on the
County Defendants’ motion to dismiss or for sanctions (Dkt. 52), filed March 7, 2019.
BACKGROUND and FACTS 1
On August 17, 2017, Plaintiff Carl M. Miller (“Plaintiff” or “Miller”), commenced
this action alleging violations of Plaintiff’s civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
asserting various state law claims against Defendants County of Erie, Department of
Sheriff of Erie County, Erie County Sheriff Timothy B. Howard, Superintendent Thomas
Diina, Lieutenant Krysztof Kania, Sergeant Christian J. Sundberg, Officer Deanna J.
Lates, Lieutenant Karen A. Yetzer, Officer Keith L. Roberts, Sergeant Richard J.
Zozaczka, Officer D. Paul Robinson, Officer Timothy M. Wanat, P.A. Davis Julian, and
R.N. Robert Gibbens (together, “County Defendants”), as well as Defendants James
Thomas (“Thomas”), Joseph Damico (“Damico”), Ariel Simms (“Simms”), and Maxim
1
The Facts are taken from the pleadings and motion papers filed in this action.
3
Healthcare Services, Inc. (together, “Defendants”). Plaintiff’s claims pertain to a beating
inflicted on Plaintiff’s head and face on September 29, 2016, while Plaintiff incarcerated
at the Erie County Holding Center (“ECHC”), in Buffalo, New York (“the incident”).
Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the incident, he sustained significant injuries,
particularly to his head and face, for which Plaintiff was denied necessary medical
treatment, requiring Plaintiff undergo two surgical procedures to monitor pressure on his
brain and to be placed in a medically induced coma. Plaintiff maintains the residual
effects he continues to suffer from the injuries have, inter alia, impaired Plaintiff’s future
earnings capacity and contributed to Plaintiff’s relapse into substance abuse. On
September 18, 2017, County Defendants removed the matter to this court asserting
federal question as the basis for jurisdiction. On September 20, 2017, County
Defendants filed their answer (Dkt. 2), asserting cross claims against Defendants
Thomas, Damico, and Simms, and a counter claim against Plaintiff.
In connection with discovery in this action, County Defendants moved on
November 14, 2018, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 35, for a court order compelling Plaintiff
appear on January 3, 2019, for an independent medical examination (“IME”) by
neurologist Sherry Leitch, M.D. (“Dr. Leitch”), who Defendants have retained as an
expert witness concerning Plaintiff’s claimed injuries and damages. (Dkt. 46) (“Motion
to Compel”). By Order filed November 21, 2018 (Dkt. 47), the undersigned granted the
Motion to Compel. Because Plaintiff was arrested on unrelated charges and
incarcerated, Plaintiff was unable to attend the January 3, 2019 IME by Dr. Leitch, and
the IME was rescheduled for February 28, 2019. (Dkts. 48 and 49). Plaintiff, however,
failed to appear for the February 28, 2019 IME. Accordingly, County Defendants filed
4
the instant motion on March 7, 2019 (Dkt. 52) (“County Defendants’ Motion”), seeking
an order dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to comply with court-ordered
discovery or, alternatively, the imposition of sanctions prohibiting Plaintiff from offering
testimony or evidence concerning his claimed neurological/head injuries. County
Defendants’ Motion is supported by the attached Declaration of Assistant County
Attorney Erin E. Molisani (“Molisani Declaration”), and Defendants’ Memorandum of
Law in Support of Their Motion for Dismissal/Sanctions (Dkt. 52-1) (“County
Defendants’ Memorandum”). On March 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed the Affidavit of Leonard
D. Zaccagnino, Esq. in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 54)
(“Zaccagnino Affidavit”), attaching the Affidavit of Carl Miller in Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 54-1) (“Plaintiff’s Affidavit”), and an exhibit (Dkt. 542) (“Plaintiff’s Exhibit”). On March 26, 2019, County Defendants filed in further support
of County Defendants’ Motion the Reply Affidavit of Assistant Erie County Attorney
Molisani (Dkt. 56) (“Molisani Reply Affidavit”).
Based on the following, County Defendants’ Motion seeking as sanctions
dismissal of the Complaint or, alternatively, an order precluding Plaintiff from presenting
any evidence or testimony in support of his claimed head injuries is DENIED. 2
2
Although County Defendants seek as a sanction dismissal of the Complaint which, if imposed, would be
dispositive of the action, in determining whether a motion for discovery sanctions is dispositive or nondispositive, “‘the critical factor is what sanction the magistrate judge actually imposes, rather than the one
requested by the party seeking sanctions.’” Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. U.S. Bank National
Association, 349 F.Supp.3d 298, 303-04 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting Khatabi v. Bonura, 2016 WL 8838889,
at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2016)). Further, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals recognizes that motions for
sanctions under Rule 37(b) generally are considered non-dispositive, although “the imposition of certain
sanctions under Rule 37, in some instances, may be considered ‘case-dispositive,’ requiring de novo
review.” Thomas E. Hoar, Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp., 900 F.2d 522, 525 (2d Cir. 1990) (italics added).
5
DISCUSSION
County Defendants’ Motion seeks dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f)(1)(C) (“Rule 16(f)(1)(C)”), 35(a) (“Rule 35(A)”), 37(b)(2)(A) and (B)
(“Rule 37(b)(2) __”), and 41(b) (“Rule 41(b)”). County Defendants’ Memorandum at 2-3.
County Defendants argue in support of dismissal that Plaintiff’s appearance for the
court-ordered neurological IME by Dr. Leitch is necessitated by the myriad of head
injuries Plaintiff allegedly sustained as a result of the incident and that Plaintiff’s
repeated failure to attend the IME which was already rescheduled once at Plaintiff’s
request, requires dismissal of the Complaint or, alternatively, a court-order barring
Plaintiff from offering evidence or testimony regarding his alleged head injuries. Id. at 45. In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that the injuries Plaintiff sustained as a result of the
incident, and for which he sues, have negatively affected Plaintiff’s reasoning and
comprehension skills and contributed to Plaintiff’s relapse into substance abuse for
which Plaintiff continues to pursue drug rehabilitation and detoxification programs.
Zaccagnino Affidavit ¶¶ 2-7; Plaintiff’s Affidavit ¶¶ 2-6. Plaintiff advises that although his
recent incarceration prevented him from attending the IME initially scheduled for
January 3, 2019, he paid the associated “no-show” fee, and offered to pay the no-show
fee for the rescheduled February 28, 2019 IME, Zaccagnino Affidavit ¶¶ 8-9, and
maintains he is “seriously attempting to get his life back on track,” which attempts
include admitting himself to an inpatient drug rehabilitation and detoxification program,
from which he was discharged on March 13, 2019, but continues to receive out-patient
therapy. Zaccagnino Affidavit ¶ 10; Plaintiff’s Affidavit ¶¶ 7-9. In light of his
circumstances, Plaintiff requests another opportunity to attend the IME by Dr. Leitch.
6
Zaccagnino Affidavit ¶ 11; Plaintiff’s Affidavit ¶ 10. In further support of dismissal,
County Defendants argue Plaintiff neither provides any excuse for failing to comply with
the court-ordered discovery nor provides any argument refuting the caselaw on which
County Defendants rely in support of their motion.
It is undisputed that the undersigned’s Order filed November 21, 2018, was
pursuant to Rule 35(a)(1) which provides the court with authority to “order a party whose
mental or physical condition . . . is in controversy to submit to a physical or mental
examination by a suitably licensed or certified examiner.” Further, the various
procedural rules on which County Defendants rely provide for the dismissal of a
complaint for failure to comply with court orders and the applicable Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. In particular, Rule 16(f)(1)(C) provides for imposition of sanctions,
including dismissal of the complaint for “fail[ing] 3 to obey a scheduling or other pretrial
order.” Rule 37(b)(2)(A) and (B), respectively, provide for imposition of sanctions for
failing to comply with court-ordered discovery, and for failing to produce a person for a
court-ordered examination under Rule 35(a). Furthermore, Rule 41(b) permits the
involuntary dismissal of an action if a plaintiff fails to comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or a court order. Nevertheless, district courts have “‘broad discretion in
fashioning an appropriate sanction’ to address discovery-related abuses.” Roberts v.
Bennaceur, 58 F.App’x 611, 614 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Residential Funding Corp. v.
DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99, 101 (2d Cir. 2002)).
Regardless of which rule is invoked, the factors relevant to a sanctions motion
are similar. In particular, the sanctions available under Rule 16(f) are the same as
3
Unless otherwise indicated, bracketed material has been added.
7
those available under Rule 37(b), and require consideration of the same factors
applicable to the imposition of Rule 37(b) sanctions. See Rahman v. Red Chili Indian
Café, Inc., 2019 WL 6619893, at * 3 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2019) (citing cases). Courts
contemplating sanctions under Rule 37(b) must consider (1) the non-compliant party’s
willfulness and the reason for the non-compliance, (2) the efficacy of lesser sanctions,
(3) the duration of the non-compliance, and (4) whether the non-compliant party was
warned of the consequences of failing to comply. Agiwal v. Mid Island Mortgage Corp.,
555 F.3d 298, 302 (2d Cir. 2009). Before imposing the extreme sanction of dismissal,
the court must find willfulness, bad faith, or fault on the part of the individual from whom
the discovery is sought. Bobal v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., 916 F.2d 759, 764 (2d
Cir. 1990.
A court considering dismissal under Rule 41(b), must weigh five factors including
“‘(1) the duration of the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court order, (2) whether
plaintiff was on notice that failure to comply would result in dismissal, (3) whether the
defendants are likely to be prejudiced by further delay in the proceedings, (4) a
balancing of the court’s interest in managing its docket with the plaintiff’s interest in
receiving a fair chance to be heard, and (5) whether the judge has adequately
considered a sanction less drastic than dismissal.’” Baptiste v. Sommers, 768 F.3d 212,
216 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Lucas v. Miles, 84 F.3d 532, 535 (2d Cir. 1996)). No one
factor is dispositive, id. (citing Nita v. Connecticut Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 16 F.3d 482, 485
(2d Cir. 1994), and dismissal is the harshest sanction requiring “‘procedural
prerequisites’” including “‘notice of the sanctionable conduct, the standard by which it
will be assessed and an opportunity to be heard.’” Id. (quoting Mitchell v. Lyons Prof’l
8
Servs., Inc., 708 F.3d 463, 467 (2d Cir. 2013)). In the instant case, although the court
does not condone Plaintiff’s failure to appear for the IME, the factors considered
pursuant to Rule 37(b) and 41(b) weigh against the imposition of harsh sanctions at this
time.
Specifically, in their Motion to Compel Plaintiff to appear for the IME, Defendants
did not argue the motion was necessitated by Plaintiff’s refusal to voluntarily submit for
such examination, and the November 21, 2018 Order directing Plaintiff appear for the
IME does not warn Plaintiff that failing to appear as scheduled for the IME could result
in the dismissal of the Complaint. County Defendants also admit they were notified by
Plaintiff’s counsel of Plaintiff’s inability to appear for the IME scheduled for January 3,
2019, prior to the appointment. Molisani Declaration ¶ 8 (“Plaintiff’s counsel advised
prior to the [January 3, 2019] examination that plaintiff would be unable to attend the
examination due to his incarceration.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff can be held responsible
for only one unexcused failure to attend the IME, i.e., the IME that was rescheduled for
February 28, 2019. Nor do County Defendants dispute that Plaintiff’s counsel has paid
or has agreed to pay the “no-show” fees incurred by County Defendants assessed when
Plaintiff failed to attend the IME both as originally scheduled for January 3, 2019, and
rescheduled for February 28, 2019. See Zaccagnino Affidavit ¶¶ 8 and 9 (averring the
“no-show” fees for the January 3, 2019 IME were paid by Plaintiff’s counsel who has
agreed to pay for any “no-show” fees assessed by Dr. Leitch for the February 28, 2019
IME). County Defendants have not indicated how the delay is unduly prejudicial to
them. Nor is there any indication that lesser sanctions would not be effective.
Moreover, the court cannot ignore that the very injuries Plaintiff maintains he sustained
9
as a result of the incident on which this action is premised could very likely contribute to
Plaintiff’s failure to appear as scheduled and without notice. Accordingly, County
Defendants’ motion for the extreme sanction of dismissal is DENIED. Further,
the alternative sanction of precluding Plaintiff from presenting any evidence or testifying
about his alleged injuries would be tantamount to dismissing the Complaint and, thus, is
also DENIED.
Although County Defendants’ requests for sanctions are denied, the court is
cognizant of their need for Plaintiff to submit to the neurological IME. Accordingly,
Plaintiff shall appear for an IME by Dr. Leitch by Friday, March 27, 2020.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, County Defendants’ Motion (Dkt. 52) is DENIED.
Plaintiff is directed to appear for IME by Dr. Leitch by March 27, 2019. PLAINTIFF IS
ADVISED HIS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN
SANCTIONS INCLUDING THE HARSH SANCTION OF DISMISSAL OF THE
COMPLAINT.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Leslie G. Foschio
______________________________________
LESLIE G. FOSCHIO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DATED:
January 29, 2020
Buffalo, New York
10
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?